Local Government

Summary

Mr C is a landlord of a property classed as a house of multiple occupancy. When he asked the council to uplift bulk waste he says he was told that he had to pay for the service, as his premises were commercial. Mr C disputed this and said that he paid council tax and if his premises were being classed as commercial he should have been paying business rates. He told us that it took the council three months to respond to his enquiries and complaints about the matter, and he still did not have a satisfactory explanation. He complained to us about the classification of his property and about the council's complaints handling.

We found that the council had not in fact classified Mr C's property as commercial, and we did not uphold that complaint. We did find, however, that he had been given misleading information that caused him to believe this.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's complaints handling. We noted that they had written to him apologising for the delay in providing their written response, and that the information he had been given about a charge was inaccurate. They confirmed that there would be no charges involved in arranging a bulk uplift. They also arranged for the correct procedural information to be given to senior management at the call centre he had contacted, which was to be communicated to all staff dealing with the public to ensure that customers are accurately advised in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that call centre staff are reminded of how to deal appropriately with complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C for the poor service he received from the call centre.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a local action group about the council's handling of a planning application to build on a site occupied by a commercial property. Mr C said the council unreasonably failed to implement a planning clause requiring replacement of a tree; failed to respond appropriately to concerns about the protection of another tree; and unreasonably failed to obtain information on the appearance of proposed garage doors. He also said the council wrongly claimed that, at a Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, the roads department representative did not support a proposal for planters along the pavement at the front of the new building; and that the council unreasonably delayed in responding to letters about the development.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He explained that the council could not have used the planning condition to require the replacement of the tree as it was not located in the application site, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, he said that the council could have used different provisions to require another company (that owned the land where the tree was located) to replace it. We were not satisfied that the council took appropriate steps to secure the replacement of the tree, or that they took all appropriate steps to safeguard the other tree. In both cases, we were also critical of the council's failure to provide this office with actual evidence of their actions, and we made recommendations to address all these failings.

Our adviser explained that no public consultation was required about the detail of the garage doors and the council's planning officer was entitled to deal with this under delegated powers. On the matter of what was said at the Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, there was insufficient objective evidence of what the roads department representative actually said. We did not uphold these complaints.

We upheld the complaint that the council delayed in providing information to the action group and local councillors on the health of the second tree, and in responding to Mr C's complaint, and we also criticised the standard of their response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make relevant staff aware of our findings on the complaints about the trees;
• ensure that, as a consequence of this complaint, staff in future keep full records of their actions as detailed by our adviser;
• confirm to the Ombudsman when replacement trees will be planted; and
• issue Mr C with a written apology for failing to respond to a letter within a reasonable time and for failing to address the new issues raised.

Summary

Mr C accepted the tenancy of a sheltered home, which he said required some upgrading as the bath was not suitable for him and he wanted to have a shower fitted. He said that although he contacted the occupational therapy service in February 2012, and was told that an appointment would be made to assess his needs, the service did not contact him. He also said that when he called to enquire about the appointment he was told it had been overlooked and that it would not be possible to make an appointment for him until near the end of May 2012. As he had to vacate his current property by 1 June 2012, he decided to arrange for the bathroom to be upgraded himself, including the removal of the bath and the installation of a shower. When, on completion, he asked for financial assistance towards the costs involved, this was refused as no assessment had been carried out and a retrospective recommendation could not be made.

Our investigation found no evidence that Mr C's assessment had been overlooked. We found that an occupational therapist had phoned him in April 2012 to say that he was on the waiting list for an assessment but this could not be completed until he was in the property. He was advised of the procedures and potential waiting times for an assessment, and the therapist also explained that his medical conditions would be taken into consideration but it would be his functional ability that would determine what would be provided, and in the meantime he could maintain hygiene by washing. As we were satisfied that the council had made him fully aware of the process that needed to be undertaken before a shower could be considered for him, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C said that her elderly parents' home had been burgled twice in the last 18 months and she was very unhappy with the council's response to the situation. She said that council staff had misinformed her father by giving various reasons why they would not fit locks to his windows to prevent further burglaries. She was particularly annoyed at the refusal as she said the tenant's handbook advises that all accessible windows should be locked using a key locking mechanism.

Our investigation found that the council's repairs and maintenance policy explains that the fitting of additional locks is the tenant's responsibility. This is also reflected in the tenant's guide to repairs and maintenance policy which Ms C's parents would have been given when they took up the tenancy. We were satisfied that section 2.12 of the tenant's handbook, which refers to ensuring all accessible windows are fitted with key-operated locks, was for advice and information only. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an adoption. They said that the council failed to alert them to legal issues that arose because of a change in legislation,and led to significant delay and expense. Mr and Mrs C also said that other prospective adopters had been treated differently and their adoptions had proceeded successfully. They said that they had been put under pressure about the way in which to progress the adoption.

In investigating the complaint, we considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence, counsel's opinion and the council's adoption policy, and made further enquiries of the council. Our investigation found that much of the complaint hinged on the time taken by the court to release Mr and Mrs C's prospective daughter for adoption, and that this was a matter outside the council's control. Similarly, the council did not have control over other issues arising from the change in legislation. The council held particular views about the way to deal with these, with which Mr and Mrs C did not agree, but this was not in itself evidence of maladministration. Neither were the council responsible for the extra legal costs that occurred as a result of Mr and Mrs C's instructions to their solicitor. We noted that the council agreed to increase their usual financial contribution towards the legal fees in recognition of the difficult and different situation that had arisen. Overall, therefore, we did not find that the council had failed to take steps to expedite the adoption nor had they placed Mr and Mrs C under undue pressure.

Summary

A wall between Mrs C's property and neighbouring properties was in need of repair and Mrs C asked a builder to attend to this. However, the council stepped in and said planning consent was needed for the work, which was in a conservation area. It also turned out that the council were partly responsible for the wall. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably failed to notify her that they were part owners of the wall, failed to repair and maintain it, and required Mrs C's builder to undertake extra work on it at significantly more cost to her.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser on this case. He explained that it was for Mrs C to clarify the ownership of the wall before starting work, by taking her own legal advice or contacting the council's legal department. It was also for her to obtain listed building consent to demolish and rebuild the wall. The adviser said that he would not expect a planning officer dealing with a general phone call about the condition of a wall to know that the council were part owners of it.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. There was no documentary evidence of any phone contact between her and the council about the condition of the wall during the time she was complaining about. The council said that they were unaware that it was in a poor condition, and we took the view that they could not, therefore, be expected to have arranged for it to be repaired or rebuilt.

The council acknowledged that they were part owners of the wall and were liable for some of the costs of repairs and maintenance. Any dispute about this was, however, a private matter between Mrs C and the council and was not something we could consider. It was clear from the advice we obtained that once they knew there was an issue with the wall, the council were entitled, in their role as planning authority, to take steps to ensure that it was rebuilt in accordance with the relevant conservation area and listed building requirements. It was also clear that Mrs C authorised the builder to act on her behalf in these negotiations and so any work was done with her consent. We did make a recommendation as we found that the council had no records of what happened after Mrs C complained.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, in future, the council keep records of action taken by their officers in response to planning complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond fully to his complaint about the standard of service they provided when he applied to them for a letter of comfort (a document provided to satisfy a buyer that the local authority will not take action to have work remedied) for a property he owned. He said that the house sale did not complete on time because of the council's delay, and that he was dissatisfied because the council had maintained that they had dealt with the matter competently. He considered that their actions showed that they had no commitment to customer experience.

Our investigation found that the council had looked into the matter by reviewing the contact between Mr C and their officers, and the level of service provided. They told us that there were no specific timescales for inspections and responses to letters of comfort, but that there was guidance in the application form that Mr C had completed. This indicated that they aimed to complete a request within two weeks of receipt of an application, although the service provided was usually quicker than this. The evidence showed that they had responded to Mr C in eight working days (ie within two weeks). They accepted that they had not acknowledged all of Mr C's emails, and although they said that they had phoned him, we were unable to verify this because of a lack of records of calls made. They also said that the reply was delayed as it had to be signed off, but we found no evidence that this was not done on the day the visit to the property took place. As the time taken from the request being made to the letter being provided was within the timescale provided to the public about the service, we did not uphold the complaint. We did, however, recommend to the council that they take steps to review their record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to review their record-keeping, especially with regard to letter of comfort inspection sheets and phone calls.

Summary

Ms C owned a property in Edinburgh, on which work was done under a statutory notice issued by the council. She complained to the council that they had not told her how her complaint about the management of this work would be reviewed. She then complained about this to us, saying that the council's review of her complaint did not look into her concerns fully.

When we investigated the complaint, we found a gap in the council's record-keeping because they did not provide us with some relevant correspondence between Ms C and their property conservation section. We also found that they had not told her how the review process would be conducted, because they had not sent the letter containing the advice about this to her home address. The council acknowledged that Ms C had not been provided with assurances that, despite a backlog in the handling of complaints about statutory notice cases, her case was being reviewed through an approved process.

We also found that email correspondence from Ms C to the council about her concerns over the contract of works was not included in the documents that formed part of the review. However, we found evidence that the review did consider the management of the repairs and her concerns were, therefore, covered in it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the failure in their record-keeping and their failure to write to her at her home address with advice about how the review process would be conducted; and
• apologise to Ms C for their failure to include an email in their consideration of her complaint about the management of statutory notices.

Summary

Mr C's late aunt (Ms A) had been in hospital following a stroke, and was discharged to a nursing home. Mr C complained that council social workers did not give Ms A the chance to visit the nursing home before sending her there (even though the manager had offered to let her visit), and did not offer her a choice of homes. He also said that the council failed to obtain the views of or inform Ms A's advocate and her family.

We do not normally investigate complaints about the actions of social workers, as these are normally considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), who have greater powers than we do to question the decisions of social workers. In this case, however, the council had decided that the complaint could not be considered by a CRC, so we investigated the actions of the social workers. In doing so, we took independent advice from a social work adviser with significant experience in older people’s services.

Ms A was considered to lack the capacity to make her own decisions. However, the council's assessment of her said that she had a little insight and would be pleased to be helped to seek a good nursing home placement. Despite this, Ms A was then discharged to a nursing home that she had not seen. The council told us this was because hospital staff had said that a visit to another home had unsettled her. However, there was no evidence that, before Ms A was discharged, social workers had assessed her needs, taken into account her wishes, or gathered information from a range of sources, including her independent advocate. This amounted to a failure to obtain and consider material and important information. We took the view that, at the very least, social work staff should have recorded why they felt that the views and interests of hospital staff should take precedence over those of Ms A. We would have expected the records to show why the potential upset of a visit was felt to be more significant than that of having to move to a home that she had not seen or visited.

We also found that the council had failed to give Ms A a choice of nursing homes, as they should have done in line with both national policy and their own policy on patients being discharged from hospital to a home. In addition, Mr C was recorded as Ms A's next of kin, but the council had not contacted him about Ms A’s discharge in line with principle 4 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. We found that these failings amounted to maladministration and upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A’s discharge to the nursing home.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the council handled his complaint. They had suspended it, as they considered that he was not entitled to confidential information about Ms A, and in view of this decided that a CRC could not be held. Guidance from the Scottish Government on holding CRCs says that a complainant has no right of access to personal information held about a third party, unless the third party gives consent. As Ms A had died before Mr C made his complaint, consent could not be obtained. In view of this, we considered that it was reasonable for the council not to refer the complaint to a CRC, and noted that the decision to suspend it had in fact been approved by a CRC. However, we found that the council had delayed in dealing with Mr C's complaints. They had also incorrectly told him that no family members had been recorded as next of kin. In view of this, we also upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings we identified;
• take steps to ensure that all staff involved in the discharge of patients from hospital are aware of and are acting in line with the relevant national and council policies;
• consider issuing guidance to staff on how they should complete one of the relevant forms when patients are discharged to a care home; and
• confirm that lessons have been learned and steps have been taken to prevent similar delays occurring when they respond to complaints about social work issues.

Summary

Ms C was rehoused following problems with antisocial behaviour in her previous neighbourhood, but was unhappy with the new property as there were some problems with a neighbour. She complained that the council were at fault in allocating her a new property where it was known that there were also antisocial behaviour problems and that they had withheld this information from her.

Our investigation found evidence that the council had taken into consideration the circumstances surrounding Ms C being rehoused, had conducted a risk assessment and allocated the property to her in line with their policies and procedures. We did not uphold her complaints.